I'm not sure if this deserves a thread of its own.
Fr. Chazal has said often enough in his sermons that DICI is being used to present Modernist Rome through rose-tinted spectacles. Here's a pretty stark example.
I put it here as a matter of interest, and public record, in case they try to scrub it or change it once they realise that they're getting caught out. We mustn't let them get away with this sort of deception!
http://www.therecusant.com/has-dici-gone-soft-part-1
"I'm not sure if this deserves a thread of its own."
[rubs eyes....]
"I'm not sure if this deserves a thread of its own."
[Yeah, he said he's not sure if this deserves a thread of it's own...]
"I'm not sure if this deserves a thread of its own." :roll-laugh2: :roll-laugh2:
That was a good one!
(He's not sure, is he? Well, what do you know about that! Half the threads on this sub-forum don't measure up to this article, so what's it going to take, a FORMAL INVITATION?!?!)+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The Recusant
An unofficial SSPX newsletter, fighting a guerilla war for the soul of Tradition!
Latest News
About Us / Sign in
Contact Us
Recent Articles
Reference Materials
Quo Vadis DICI...?
OR
Heads in the Sand regarding Modernist Rome!
Part 1
January 2013
Without doubt, any analysis of the SSPX uproar of 2012, whether by those sympathetic to Menzingen or those against, must see the dispute largely in terms of the relation of the SSPX to Rome, which is to say, the apparent desire for an agreement or 'recognition' by those on one side, and the opposition to any dealings with an unconverted, still-modernist Rome by those on the other. Rome is at the centre, whichever way one considers it. Many of the opponents and sceptics of current SSPX leadership, and their dealings with Rome, accuse Bishop Fellay, Fr. Pfluger, Fr. Schmidberger and others of softening their stance towards modernist Rome. They say that the condemnations levelled against the Vatican authorities by Archbishop Lefebvre have become a thing of the past.
As evidence of this, Fr. Pfeiffer, Fr. Chazal and others have pointed to the dilution or weakening or virtual absence of any condemnation by the official SSPX, and DICI in particular, of modern Roman scandals. Fr. Chazal, in his "War Aims" (found elsewhere on TheRecusant.com) accuses DICI seeing everything coming out of Modernist Rome through rose-tinted spectacles. The defenders of Menzingen say that this is not the case. Let us take a recent example as a case study, and try to see for ourselves.
We begin with some very recent words of Pope Benedict XVI:
"One of the fundamental human rights, also with reference to international peace, is the right of individuals and communities to religious freedom. At this stage in history, it is becoming increasingly important to promote this right not only from the negative point of view, as freedom from – for example, obligations or limitations involving the freedom to choose one’s religion – but also from the positive point of view, in its various expressions, as freedom for – for example, bearing witness to one’s religion, making its teachings known, engaging in activities in the educational, benevolent and charitable fields which permit the practice of religious precepts, and existing and acting as social bodies structured in accordance with the proper doctrinal principles and institutional ends of each."
Benedict XVI, Message for World Day of Peace, 1st Jan, 2013
Source:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/messages/peace/docuмents/hf_ben-xvi_mes_20121208_xlvi-world-day-peace_en.html
Note that he says explicitly, not only 'freedom from,' but positively 'freedom for'...! That is, freedom to practise publicly, to advertise a false religion publicly, to seek to make converts, etc. Nowhere in his message does he say, imply or even hint that this applies only to the CATHOLIC religion; on the contrary, it is abundantly clear that Benedict XVI is here speaking about any or all religions.
We defy anyone to claim that this quote is in some way taken out of context, or that there is any way in which this statement can be squared with the teaching of the Church and would not fall under the condemnations of the Church prior to the Council. It seems pretty clear and straightforward to us!
"But, to judge aright, we must acknowledge that, the more a State is driven to tolerate evil, the further is it from perfection; and that the tolerance of evil which is dictated by political prudence should be strictly confined to the limits which its justifying cause, the public welfare, requires.
...
And although in the extraordinary condition of these times the Church usually acquiesces in certain modern liberties, not because she prefers them in themselves, but because she judges it expedient to permit them, she would in happier times exercise her own liberty; and, by persuasion, exhortation, and entreaty would endeavor, as she is bound, to fulfill the duty assigned to her by God of providing for the eternal salvation of mankind. One thing, however, remains always true - that the liberty which is claimed for all to do all things is not, as We have often said, of itself desirable, inasmuch as it is contrary to reason that error and truth should have equal rights."
- Leo XIII, Libertas Praestanstissimum,34ff
“...They do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, an "insanity," viz., that "liberty of conscience and worship is each man's personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way." But, while they rashly affirm this, they do not think and consider that they are preaching "liberty of perdition".”
- Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura, 3ff
So far so good. But we all know that already don't we, so why the fuss? Well, now we come to the interesting part, and the whole point of this article. What was DICI's response to this? To give the reader a balanced flavour, we reproduce some of it here. Please do follow the link, however, and see for yourself.
In his message for the World Day of Peace, January 1, 2013, entitled “Blessed are the Peacemakers”, two themes more particularly occupy the pope’s attention: the defense of traditional marriage and the defense of human life, from its beginning to its natural end.
...
The pope also considers it unjust “to introduce surreptitiously into legislation false rights or freedoms which, on the basis of a reductive and relativistic view of human beings and the clever use of ambiguous expressions aimed at promoting a supposed right to abortion and euthanasia, pose a threat to the fundamental right to life”.
The principles that defend life and traditional marriage are not truths of faith, the Supreme Pontiff emphasized. “They are inscribed in human nature itself, accessible to reason and thus common to all humanity.” This is why “the Church’s efforts to promote them are not therefore confessional in character, but addressed to all people, whatever their religious affiliation.”
Moreover the pope considers that peacemaking comes about through a new model of development and economics....
...
Benedict XVI regrets the spread of the ideologies of radical liberalism and of technocracy. According to these ideologies, “economic growth should be pursued even to the detriment of the state’s social responsibilities and civil society’s networks of solidarity, together with social rights and duties.” The pope concludes his message with a warning against “that false peace promised by the idols of this world along with the dangers which accompany it, that false peace which dulls consciences, which leads to self-absorption, to a withered existence lived in indifference”.
Source:
http://www.dici.org/en/news/message-for-the-world-day-of-peace-on-the-defense-of-the-family/ Just to be absolutely certain, we have read it through, more than once. The reader can find the whole thing by following the link provided, and see for himself. Not only does the DICI article dealing with the Pope's 2013 "World Day of Peace" address not condemn or correct this blatantly false, heterodox and - dare we say it? heretical - teaching by Benedict XVI, it doesn't even make any reference to it or even mention it in passing! In fact, it spends a lot of time talking about virtually every other thing which he spoke about or mentioned. Worse still, although they do mention briefly, and in a somewhat convoluted way that religious liberty is not a good thing, even this is only spoken of in relation to other people (Fr. Lombardi), but pointedly not the Pope, who (as is clear from his words) is if anything a bigger proponent of Religious Liberty than anyone!
In fact, DICI speaks of the Pope's address in... 'strikingly sympathetic terms', to borrow a phrase. Were one to read DICI without having first seen the Pope's address for oneself, one might be forgiven for thinking that the Pope's 2013 'World Day of Peace' address was a great piece of Catholic teaching of which we could all be proud. DICI focusses much of its attention what it calls "media intimidation", relating to some parts of the address regarding marriage to which, it seems, the secular press took exception. But no mention whatsoever of Benedict XVI's great angst over the state of Religious Liberty today, nor his explicit teaching that everyone has a fundamental right positively to practise and preach error publicly. Not one word.
Perhaps they are following Fr. Juan Carlos Iscara's advice, that we should be silent in the face of those who teach error, in order to better reconcile ourselves with them?
It is time that we were honest with ourselves and asked: "What is the purpose of DICI"? In the above example it is abundantly clear that they are hiding the truth about the Pope from us. Failing to report on his words at all would be bad enough, but to take a text which contains such obvious, blatant error and then pretend that it was really rather good is, if anything, worse than mere failure to condemn. It is deliberately, consciously misinforming us. DICI is being used to lie, to hide from us the reality of conciliar Rome.
We hope to keep you updated with other examples of the subversion of DICI, as and when we come across them.
Support Our Apostolate!
Help us to expose the subversion within the SSPX! Please consider making a small paypal donation to The Recusant.
"Viva Christo Rey!"
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
P.S. If you haven't tried yet to get a subscription to The Recusant, the day
will likely come when you regret this hesitation........................N.
Topic: Quo Vadis DICI..? (Read 1314 times)